Wadsworth Avenue Associates v. Maynard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wadsworth Avenue Associates v. Maynard

45 A.D.3d 316, 844 N.Y.S.2d 698

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 8, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 316 (Wadsworth Avenue Associates v. Maynard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wadsworth Avenue Associates v. Maynard, 45 A.D.3d 316, 844 N.Y.S.2d 698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered October 23, 2006, which, in an action by a limited partner (Haggerty) against a general partner, denied Haggerty’s motion to vacate an order, same court and Justice, entered November 19, 2004, denying his motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, with costs in favor of defendant payable by plaintiff.

A prior appeal by Haggerty from the November 19, 2004 order was dismissed as academic because of the subsequent entry of a judgment from which Haggerty did not appeal (23 AD3d 302 [2005]). Consequently, Haggerty’s appeal from the order denying his motion to vacate the November 19, 2004 order (actually an untimely motion to reargue) must also be dismissed. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered October 23, 2006, which, in an action by a limited partner (Haggerty) against a general partner, denied Haggerty’s motion to vacate an order, same court and Justice, entered November 19, 2004, denying his motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, with costs in favor of defendant payable by plaintiff.

A prior appeal by Haggerty from the November 19, 2004 order was dismissed as academic because of the subsequent entry of a judgment from which Haggerty did not appeal (23 AD3d 302 [2005]). Consequently, Haggerty’s appeal from the order denying his motion to vacate the November 19, 2004 order (actually an untimely motion to reargue) must also be dismissed. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 316, 844 N.Y.S.2d 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wadsworth-avenue-associates-v-maynard-nyappdiv-2007.